IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkie/279830.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

ASEAN and the EU Challenged by “Divide and Rule” Strategies of the US and China Evidence and Possible Reactions

Author

Listed:
  • Chirathivat, Suthiphand
  • Langhammer, Rolf J.

Abstract

The US and China have launched attacks upon the coherence of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU) by offering individual member states privileges if they depart from common policies of the two integration schemes. The article describes the motivation behind these offers and the ways how they are addressed to the member states. It sees such “divide and rule” policies as serious challenges for the collective bargaining power the ASEAN and the EU and discusses strategies to counter these challenges. For both the US and China, the authors see economic and political targets as the main motivation. Economically, each of the two countries wants to gain superiority in pathing free ways for their suppliers of technology, goods and services to the markets of the two schemes against the competitive pressure of the other country. Politically, the two schemes have become contested areas in geopolitical struggles between the two countries. For the EU as the more advanced scheme of deep integration, the paper recommends a closer convergence between EU policies and the demand of the electorate, to prefer more cooperation projects over deeper integration steps and to motivate the private sector, in particular foreign investors to stand up against “divide and rule “strategies. For ASEAN, it is important to see the Sino-US conflict as a long term challenge, to prevent the region from becoming a Chinese backyard, and to deepen integration by removing non-tariff barriers to trade within ASEAN.

Suggested Citation

  • Chirathivat, Suthiphand & Langhammer, Rolf J., 2020. "ASEAN and the EU Challenged by “Divide and Rule” Strategies of the US and China Evidence and Possible Reactions," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279830, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkie:279830
    DOI: 10.1007/s10368-020-00470-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/279830/1/s10368-020-00470-6.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10368-020-00470-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gabriel Felbermayr & Marina Steininger, 2019. "Trump’s trade attack on China − who will have the last laugh?," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 20(01), pages 27-32, April.
    2. Bhagwati, Jagdish N & Dinopoulos, Elias & Wong, Kar-yiu, 1992. "Quid Pro Quo Foreign Investment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(2), pages 186-190, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schulhof, Vera & van Vuuren, Detlef & Kirchherr, Julian, 2022. "The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): What Will it Look Like in the Future?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bekkers, Eddy & Schroeter, Sofia, 2020. "An economic analysis of the US-China trade conflict," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2020-04, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    2. Cappariello, Rita & Franco-Bedoya, Sebastian & Gunnella, Vanessa & Ottaviano, Gianmarco I. P., 2020. "Rising protectionism and global value chains: quantifying the general equilibrium effects," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 108423, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Fernando Mistura & Caroline Roulet, 2019. "The determinants of Foreign Direct Investment: Do statutory restrictions matter?," OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2019/01, OECD Publishing.
    4. Bruce A. Blonigen & Robert C. Feenstra, 1997. "Protectionist Threats and Foreign Direct Investment," NBER Chapters, in: The Effects of US Trade Protection and Promotion Policies, pages 55-80, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Louis Jaeck & Sehjeong Kim, 2018. "FDI Deregulation Versus Labor Market Reform: a Political Economy Approach," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 46(1), pages 73-89, March.
    6. Barrell, Ray & Pain, Nigel, 1999. "Trade restraints and Japanese direct investment flows," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 29-45, January.
    7. Yamawaki, Hideki, 1994. "International Competitiveness and the Choice of Entry Mode: Japanese Multinationals in U.S. and European Manufacturing Industries," Working Paper Series 424, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    8. Laixun Zhao, 1996. "The Complementarity Between Endogenous Protection And Direct Foreign Investment," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(1), pages 61-72, March.
    9. Takemori, Shumpei & Tsumagari, Masatoshi, 1997. "A political economy theory of foreign investment: An alternative approach," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 515-531, December.
    10. Yu-Ter Wang, 2008. "Outward FDI from a Free Trade Area: the Small Open Economy Case," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 6(47), pages 1-7.
    11. Blanchard, Emily J., 2010. "Reevaluating the role of trade agreements: Does investment globalization make the WTO obsolete?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 63-72, September.
    12. Cecilia Bellora & Lionel Fontagné, 2019. "Shooting Oneself in the Foot? Trade War and Global Value Chains," Working Papers 2019-18, CEPII research center.
    13. Grether, Jean-Marie & de Melo, Jaime & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2001. "Who determines Mexican trade policy?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 343-370, April.
    14. Douglas Nelson, 1996. "The Political Economy of U.S. Automobile Protection," NBER Chapters, in: The Political Economy of American Trade Policy, pages 133-196, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Dehejia, Vivek H. & Weichenrieder, Alfons J., 2001. "Tariff jumping foreign investment and capital taxation," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 223-230, February.
    16. Hideo Konishi & Kamal Saggi & Shlomo Weber, 2023. "Endogenous trade policy under foreign direct investment," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Technology Transfer, Foreign Direct Investment, and the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Global Economy, chapter 23, pages 523-542, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Grossman, Gene M. & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Foreign Investment with Endogenous Protection," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275594, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    18. Rolf J. Langhammer, 2010. "Unordnung in der internationalen Handelsordnung: Befunde, Gründe, Auswirkungen und Therapien," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 11(1), pages 75-98, February.
    19. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:6:y:2008:i:47:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Emmanouil Karakostas, 2022. "The Effects of Protectionism on the Exports of the Trade Partners: A Composite Index," International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), International Hellenic University (IHU), Kavala Campus, Greece (formerly Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of Technology - EMaTTech), vol. 15(1), pages 58-70, July.
    21. Mordechal Kreinin & Elias Dinopoulos, 1995. "Protection of industry," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 179-196, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Regional integration; Cooperation; External challenges; US-China conflict; Brexit; Asia; Trade;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F01 - International Economics - - General - - - Global Outlook
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration
    • O52 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Europe
    • O53 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Asia including Middle East

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkie:279830. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iwkiede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.